The knowledge about morality that we possess today is the culmination of years of philosophical debate and the development of rigorous theoretical concepts that help us delve into different aspects of it. Such theoretical concepts include utilitarianism and Kantian deontology, which explore aspects of morality in a person's actions, helping us determine whether their actions should be considered moral or immoral. In this essay I will try to take an in-depth look at the implementation of such theories in certain areas of knowledge and highlight the key differences between them by showing how the implementation of said theories affects the ability to act in a situation. Furthermore, through this comparison, I will conclude whether there is a middle ground between the influence of said theories. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay Formulated by the well-known philosopher Immanuel Kant, Kantian deontology believes that ethics must be carefully examined to see whether an action itself is right or wrong, regardless of the consequences/outcome of the act and therefore believes that the most ethical choice and one that strictly adheres to a series of rules. The theory states that one should do the right thing regardless of the circumstances and avoid wrongdoing as this is what it considers to be a moral act. Deontology is appreciated for some aspects that help us evaluate a situation and consider what the morality is. thing to do as the emphasis on the value of every being. Deontology focuses on giving equal respect to every being and obliges us to pay due attention to the interests of an individual being even when these conflict with the interests of the masses. This means that deontology takes into account how a situation uniquely affects each individual entity involved in it and therefore defines which action is to be considered moral without being influenced by the number of entities that are similarly affected. Furthermore, because deontology focuses on the intention of an action, it provides a sense of certainty and universality in judging a situation based on morality. This reduces ambiguity in making judgments because it is sufficient to respect the set of rules defined in this theory to make a moral judgment. However, just like a coin, ethics also has a second side. With the strong emphasis on respecting a certain set of rules, deontology expects all situations to be absolute in nature which, as can be observed in the real world, is not possible and therefore, the only option available is to create exceptions for cases that are not of an absolute nature. This in itself weakens the basis of the theory, making it impossible to judge any situation based on one set of rules since multiple exceptions could easily be introduced to disguise an action as moral which would have been considered immoral according to Kantian deontology. Furthermore, another anomaly that lurks when considering deontology is the internal conflict between the different sets of rules that are established according to it. Since ethics does not explicitly define what should be done when this happens, it is difficult to make a decision about what action to take. Contrasting perspectives provide us with additional insights into a particular topic and thus utilitarianism is a suitable example to explore against Kantian deontology. Formulated by a pair of well-known philosophers Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill, utilitarianism determines right from wrong by emphasizing the consequential aspect of actions and therefore believes that the most ethical choice is the one that produces the greatestquantity of good for the maximum number. Due to its consequential nature, utilitarianism considers the intentions of an action to be of lesser importance and therefore does not consider them when judging an action.situation on morality. Utilitarianism is further classified into two concepts, act utilitarianism and rule utilitarianism. Act utilitarianism focuses on individual actions and their potential to cause the greatest amount of happiness, while rule utilitarianism focuses on the average amount of happiness created by many people conducting the same actions/following the same rule . Utilitarianism is valued for the influence it has on our regular and rather small moral judgments that we make on a daily basis. It is considered a well-intentioned theory as it prioritizes a good outcome/consequence in every situation, which is the basis of our everyday decision-making construct. Utilitarianism also introduces rationality in judging the morality of an action. By considering the sum of all the positive results of an action and comparing them with the negative consequences of the same, utilitarianism helps to make a rational judgment about an action that should be performed. Furthermore, utilitarianism is also an appropriate choice in judging situations in which deontology fails to provide adequate insight. Due to its consequential nature, utilitarianism allows us to judge any situation in a tailored manner and helps to perform moral actions through rational thinking. However, utilitarianism is also full of flaws that make it difficult to make a judgment about whether an act is moral or immoral. With the ability to make judgments about morality uniquely for each situation, utilitarianism introduces too much ambiguity and, as a result, loses certainty in the arguments it supports, which is completely opposite to Kantian deontology. Furthermore, utilitarianism is not suitable for making judgments about long-term consequences since it is very difficult to predict the long-term consequences of an action and therefore utilitarianism is not useful when evaluating the morality of an action that extends long term. Furthermore, utilitarianism can justify clearly immoral actions as moral in certain circumstances. Such actions are ones we would never approve of on their own. This introduces a paradox into morality as we must decide whether we should perform an immoral act to generate a moral outcome or not. Since Kantian deontology and utilitarianism both have their strengths and weaknesses, so I think it is important to see how both of these Theories influence our moral judgment on a given situation to understand how they are different and/or similar in nature . One of the examples where we could test both of these theories is the well-known trolley problem. With a wide variety of variations, the general theme of the problem states that there is a rampant cart racing towards 5 people and you have access to a switch that will divert the cart from their path but endanger another bystander. In this given situation, the utilitarian aspect suggests pressing the switch so that the cart is diverted, because according to utilitarianism, saving the lives of 5 people results in a greater outcome than saving a single life. On the other hand, Deontology states that it is universally considered immoral to take a life and therefore the deontological aspect suggests not to flip the switch since killing the single person is considered immoral because it was your intention to do so during the death of the 5 people not they were intended by you. Here it can be seen that both theories have their reasons for stating which approach is moral and a conceptual stalemate is reached. Another example where we can test both theories is a well-known thought experiment.